Frame

The Inquiry category of our curriculum asks us to explore social science research methods, both qualitative and quantitative.  We learn what the characteristics of each are, and what kind of project is appropriate for each.  One task in conducting an original research project is the identification of a theory to inform, explain, and possibly predict our research findings.  Theory is also used to critique an artifact, helping to assign meaning to how the artifact relays its message.  Applying theory to a cultural artifact can suggest language to express the experience of seeing or hearing a text.  This provides the tools to reflect on why the text works, what its job is, who benefits from it, and what one might decide to do as a result of one's own response.

This paper, written in an informal voice, uses queer theory to question our reaction to fictional characters whose sexual expression troubles us.  I would wish the reader to think carefully about what it means to “read” someone’s sexual legitimacy, and be aware of their own reaction to someone acting entitled to an experience that a preferred reading would say does not belong to them.

 Paper

The idea that there are some categories of consenting adult who have their sexual autonomy withheld by public tastes is the status quo.  For example, we would not deny romance to a heavy person on principle, but we certainly do not want to see public displays of affection or the kind of strutting and bragging that we shrug off for so many others.  We are bothered by deep confidence in some people, the kind that comes from complete comfort and knowledge of their own bodies.  We’d be much more approving if they displayed the same misgivings about their bodies as we have about their bodies - elderly, disabled, or out of proportion as they are.  At the very least, we would like to be sure of who these individuals intend to pursue romantically so we can determine if we’re “safe” from any awkward attention.  In short, categorizing people and enforcing the rules of sexual behavior for each category is how we handle the unsettling reality that virtually everyone is sexual, by birthright.  

Queer theory, originally formed to interrogate cultural issues around non-heteronormative sexual identities, can also be employed to question human categories in general (Brummett, p. 184-185).  In this paper, I will discuss three video clips featuring someone who is acting outside the bounds of their human category where sexual expression is concerned.  The question I pose for each is, “Is this character “queering” a human category, or just being mocked?”  Queer theory will have something to say about whether the text ultimately affirms or challenges the status quo for that character.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mr857fAYtnAIn this Superbowl ad from 2013, a supermodel and a character actor playing a blotchy-faced, frizzy-haired nerd share a disturbing kiss.  The kiss and the idea of sexual progression between these two troubles us.  If he had botched the kiss or the model had seemed to be humoring him, it would have been far less disturbing and thus maintained the status quo.  Bar is clearly sexual; people physically on par with her fit our idea of sexual beings. Walter isn’t.  Men like Walter don’t get to be sexual because they don’t fit our idea of what real men look like. There is something oddly childlike about him - he’s pudgy, not muscular, gives the impression of being short. His hair may not have changed since fifth grade. We expect him to be sexually inexperienced, and when it seems that he’s not, we are forced to consider that even unattractive people have sex.  I think this fits a queer critique because it suggests that, if everyone is sexual, then sex must be normal. It’s a common experience, rather than a privileged experience.   This conclusion, along with our discomfort with the kiss, are ample evidence that Walter’s category is being challenged.

What would need to be true of a similarly offbeat characterization to make it supportive of the status quo?   In this 1990s skit from Saturday Night Live (https://screen.yahoo.com/pat-drugstore-000000166.html?query=pat+drugstore) the androgynous character, Pat, gets some help buying personal items from a drugstore clerk who clearly can’t wait for Pat to wrap up the purchase and leave.  The clerk, and the man leaving as Pat comes in, both showed their bafflement, and we identify with them.  Pat is unappealing, not just because she has an annoying voice and strange body, but because she is unconcerned with her effect on these two.  We would expect someone as odd as Pat to play it down, not draw attention to herself.  Instead, Pat asks for a number of drugstore items off the shelf, each more personal than the last.  This fails to “queer” the human category of androgyny because we’re on the clerk’s side.  When Pat confesses to being a “very sexual being”, we want her to stop talking and go away as much as the clerk does.  Pat has no trouble asking for what she wants including condoms, is plainly happy with herself, and yet is not sympathetic.  Nothing in this skit makes the viewer curious about his own reactions, and he is not being asked to see things from the perspective of someone different.  There are no perceptual surprises for us.  We are more or less ok with Pat being treated like a freak, and it’s funny.  The comedic premise of this skit is that Pat’s lack of self-consciousness is as strange and comical as her body type and voice.   The fact that we can’t wait for her to go away is proof that the status quo is being supported here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qflfp736qooOne of the best loved of all Saturday Night Live skits features Patrick Swayze and Chris Farley as two dancers auditioning for Chippendale’s side by side.  Swayze is the ideal Chippendale; fit, graceful, and sexy.  Farley is the opposite, but the way he throws himself into his performance suggests otherwise.  His moves are pure passion and confidence, and unlike Pat, we are rooting for him from the start.  Our first clue that this skit falls squarely in the queer camp is when Swayze’s character begins to show hesitation in his own performance when he sees Farley’s, and starts trying to match and top him.  One reason this is funny, and queer, is how we begin to change our perception of Farley.  Even with all his jerky moves and jiggly flesh, we find ourselves buying it somehow.  Unlike the skit with Pat, we are surprised by our reaction, and delighted.  We don’t want him to stop dancing; we actually can’t take our eyes off him.  Neither can the judges, who are clearly seeing both dancers as viable candidates.  The joke continues after the dancers are back stage expressing mutual admiration and friendship.  Here is another level of queer - the corny becomes the sincere.  In a real audition like this, such a friendship would not happen, and we know that it is being played for laughs.  But it is also sweet, and we want to believe that an Adonis like Swayze and a sweaty goofball like Farley might actually be friends after auditioning for Chippendale’s.  One characteristic of a queer artifact is that it opens the world up for a marginalized person rather than making it smaller.  We know this when we realize we are not laughing at Farley because he’s pathetic, we’re laughing because we are caught off guard by how much we like him.  If we are laughing at anyone it is the self-important judges, who are in the position of power.